This is a continuation of U.S. patent application number 185,492, filed Apr. 25, 1988, and entitled "Windshield Protector", abandoned.
This invention relates generally to protectors for vehicles and more specifically to windshield protectors.
Because of the critical nature of the windshield, its protection from the elements when the vehicle is not in use has been a problem. Excessive exposure to sunlight causes the vehicle to overheat and can cause damage to the material in the interior. Snow, ice, and dew collect on the windshield and can dramatically decrease operator vision requiring an excessive amount of work in removing it.
One critical problem which all screens must address is their own security. The vehicle itself is usually equipped with locks and the like. Without a method of securing a windshield protector, the protectors are easily stolen which eliminates their effectiveness and commercial viability.
One approach to the problem was described by U.S. Pat. No. 4,202,396, issued to Levy on May 13, 1980, and entitled "Motor Vehicles and Sunshields". In this approach, a collapsing cardboard type of screen is used on the interior of the vehicle. Although this approach does protect the cars interior from direct sunlight, it does not address the problem of excessive heating or of exterior protection. The heat from the sunlight is merely caught between the cardboard screen and the windshield providing an oven approach which is released when the operator removes the screen. No protection is given for snow or ice collecting on the windshield.
Several other methods have been developed to provide exterior protection to the windshield. These include U.S. Pat. No. 2,359,496, issued Oct. 3, 1944, to Taylor entitled "Frost Shield"; U.S. Pat. No. 3,588,169, to Lunt, entitled "Windshield Protector"; and, U.S. Pat. No. 4,597,608, to Duffy, entitled "Automobile Windshield Cover".
All of these devices attempt to solve the ice problem with an exterior cover. Each though requires some physical modification to be done to the vehicle so that the shield can be fastened to the vehicle. Unfortunately, these fasteners are not attractive to the vehicle owner and disrupt the vehicle's lines. Additionally, although the screen/cover is fastened to the vehicle, the fasteners are available to any passerby who could readily disengage the screen/ cover and steal it.
Other approaches have been taken to fasten the screen/ cover to the vehicle without the requirement of modifying the vehicle. These include the use of ropes or the like to "tie" or fasten the covering to the vehicle by way of the door handles or other natural points on the vehicle.
Included in this group is U.S. Pat. No. 2,223,145, issued Nov. 26, 1940, to Wise and entitled "Windshield Cover"; U.S. Pat. No. 2,437,845, issued Mar. 16, 1948, to Wyeth and entitled "Windshield Cover"; U.S. Pat. No. 3,874,437, issued Apr. 1, 1975, to Black and entitled "Windshield Cover".
In all of these situations, the device is tied to an exterior part of the car making it extremely easy to steal the covering.
To eliminate the need for tying and make it easier for the operator to apply the covering, many devices have been developed which use some adhesive type of device such as magnets or suction cups.
Included in this group are: U.S. Pat. No. 3,410,601, issued Nov. 12, 1968, to Thompson for "Windshield Protective Device"; U.S. Pat. No. 1,473,029, issued Nov. 6, 1923, to Faubert et al. for "Clear Vision Device"; U.S. Pat. No. 3,964,780, issued June 22, 1976, to Naidu for "Snow Protectors for Windshields"; U.S. Pat. No. 3,184,264, issued May 18, 1965, to Ealey et al. for "Windshield Protector"; U.S. Pat. No. 3,042,111, issued July 3, 1962, to Wytovich for "Magnetic Windshield and Window Covers"; and U.S. Pat. No. 3,046,048, issued July 24, 1962, to Cheney for "Magnetically Secured Windshield Cover".
Besides being very susceptible to theft, many of these devices can damage the vehicle during removal. In the case of magnetic adhesion, when the magnet is drawn across the paint, a small amount of sand between the magnet and the paint can scratch the paint. This, together with the lack of security for the device makes it unappealing to the user.
In order to solve the security factor, some devices have attempted to fasten the cover into the vehicle. This is usually done by having a flap or wing of the material fit between the vehicle's door and its frame. When the material is closed therein, a thief would have to unlock the door to remove the screen without destroying the screen.
This arrangement is described by U.S. Pat. No. 2,851,303, issued Sept. 9, 1958, to McQueen for "Windshield Protector". In this device, the screen is contained upon a roller which is attached to the steering wheel and enclosed within the vehicle. A similar approach was described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,635,993, issued Jan. 13, 1987, to Hooper et al. for "Automobile Windshield Cover". This device had two wings with padded ends which could be placed within the vehicle to attach the screen/ cover to the vehicle.
The problem with both the McQueen and Hooper et al. approach is that during application of the cover, it is physically impossible to obtain a secure fit across the windshield itself (the object of all the inventions). Once one end of the screen is placed in position, the other end is moved into position and the vehicle's door is opened. The operator then must hold the wing extending into the interior of the vehicle while the operator closes the vehicle's door. The closing of the door creates a rush of air that naturally flows under the windshield cover and loosens it. The operator is further distracted by the fact that the vehicle's door is closing only a fraction of an inch from their own fingers. This, besides being dangerous, is also distracting causing the operator to have less than full concentration.
Another important deficiency with all of the prior art is their choice of materials. Usually this material is a single sheet of plastic or the like which becomes brittle and stiff when subjected to the cold (as would be found in a snow screen situation). Once the screen has been used a couple of times, it has either been torn or the operator loses patience with its stiffness and either discards it or does not use it.
It is clear from the forgoing that an efficient, safe, and secure mechanism does not exist which will permit the protection of the front windshield of a vehicle.